If anything in politics would take me out of the undecided columns, Paul Ryan's being chosen as Romney's running mate will do it. The self-dependence theories of Ayn Rand work fine in fiction, but in MY real world, I'd rather not be quite that much on my own. Just sayin'"

But don't worry too much, Ryan, and more importantly, Romney are not a Rand-style individualists. They are conservative capitalists with slash and burn rhetoric that appeals to people like me but cannot come to fruition without the support of a congress that is too self-serving to actually institute true, effective reforms. They are all career politicians that know the system currently benefits them more than anyone else._________________"I do not want people to be very agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking them a great deal." - Jane Austen
"The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid." - Jane Austen

I don't believe it is possible either but I wish it were. I believe in individual ingenuity and enterprise. I don't really go as far as Rand (I love my family and community and know that they have helped me become the person that I am) but I have more faith in me and mine than I do in representatives. My family and I could survive on our own if we have to and that gives me comfort in a time when we have become entirely too complacent in relying on government._________________"I do not want people to be very agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking them a great deal." - Jane Austen
"The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid." - Jane Austen

If anything in politics would take me out of the undecided columns, Paul Ryan's being chosen as Romney's running mate will do it. The self-dependence theories of Ayn Rand work fine in fiction, but in MY real world, I'd rather not be quite that much on my own. Just sayin'"

You read my mind! Paul Ryan should definitely help anyone whose is undecided make up their minds. I don't want that kind of governance in my world either. I keep sayin' that this country started with a focus on "democracy" and not just "capitalism." Besides, we already tried The Articles of Confederation and had to scrap them for the Constitution with its balance of federal and states rights. And we already see what great shape many states are in now.

My question is do you think Paul Ryan will strengthen the Republican ticket (bring in votes), weaken it (lose votes), or is it both?

@erhea13: Even those qualities--inventiveness and willingness to work for what one wants--I think, have become dependent, to some extent, on the actions and reactions of others. In the world we live in, we almost have to trust others for certain things--that a drug will work, that food is clean, that the doctor is informed--and trust is way down on Rand's list.

@eliza: Well, if people listen to what he says, he'll probably garner some votes; if they think about the results if he and Romney carry through on they say, he'll probably lose some, especially among those of more advanced years.

I've always, though, sort of admired those persons who can be zealous about things, as Ryan is. I've always been rather skeptical about most "great ideas." It's interesting, too, that Ryan has more or less disavowed adherence to the full scope of Rand's philosophy, saying that his favorite source of ideas is Thomas Aquinas. Politics makes for such interesting backpedalling, don't you think?

Thank you for the article. Mark, which paranormal category would this fit in? I'm thinking time travel back to feudalism.

I know the Veeps don't usually affect elections, or so has been said, but geez, with the Tea Partiers likely going for this guy and the "nice guy to have a beer with" contingent, I'm nervous. I'm also concerned about election ID issues for the elderly--which is in court in our state now, a large battleground state with an older population--which could be a key factor.

I'm hoping like mad that more Americans really pay attention to details this election than to attack ads that everyone says they hate, but have also been said to be effective. I know some staunch party-line GOP folks who have said they plan not to vote at all.

Here's a ridiculously broad question: Do you think more people will pay attention to details this year because of the mood of the country, or do you think folks will side with ideologies? What about the unemployment figure-- think that'll have its usual negative effect?

dick wrote:

Quote:

I've always been rather skeptical about most "great ideas." It's interesting, too, that Ryan has more or less disavowed adherence to the full scope of Rand's philosophy, saying that his favorite source of ideas is Thomas Aquinas. Politics makes for such interesting backpedalling, don't you think?

Yep, I do. Laissez-faire and Rand are probably less accessible or ear-catching than natural law and Aquinas (with the religion aspect). Why go for Locke or Hobbes when you have Aquinas? Next up: twisting up natural law and natural rights out of context from the Constitution or Declaration? Wouldn't be at all surprised. You?

Last edited by Eliza on Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:12 am; edited 1 time in total

No, I hadn't. Thanks for the referrals. I particularly enjoyed the Dowd and Collins pieces, for laughter is a remarkably appropriate reaction to much in this election, even though we'll probably all be lamenting regardless who wins.

I agree and I never ever miss a Collins column. She always makes me laugh. The other column I never miss is one with Collins and David Brooks together which are often great fun too.

I just found, yes, another one, which starts off this way:

Few Voters Are Truly Up for Grabs, Research Suggests
WASHINGTON — Curtis Napier, a 52-year-old father of two in Lima, Ohio, belongs to a much-discussed group of Americans that is far smaller than is often realized: He is a true swing voter. He voted for George W. Bush in 2004 and for Barack Obama in 2008. With three months remaining in the campaign between Mr. Obama and Mitt Romney, Mr. Napier said, “I may not just vote for either one of them.”

About one-third of Americans describe themselves as independent voters, creating a widespread impression that a large group of Americans will provide the decisive swing votes in this year’s presidential election. But that impression is misleading, polling experts and political scientists say....

...With three months remaining in the campaign between Mr. Obama and Mitt Romney, Mr. Napier said, “I may not just vote for either one of them.”

Wow. I'm a die-hard, born-in-the-cradle Democrat, and find myself in the same boat as the above person. I keep wishing that the people attending this year's conventions would throw a coup and elect different people from each party to run for President. Doing it that way, even with unknowns, couldn't be any worse than the candidates we have up before us now.

I don't dislike Obama, just don't agree with him all the time along party lines. Romney's fiscal and other attitudes leave me somewhat confused, although as a person he appears to be decent. What would happen if nobody voted for a candidate in the Presidential spot and instead focused on the reps and senators? Wouldn't that be funny if the count for President would be 4-2 or something like that? I know that not voting for either candidate is definitely not the answer, but I really don't care for either of these two at all for President.